This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
In the Goths article an entirely different Proto-Germanic etymology is given solely. They are both mentioned here, but not in a harmonious fashion. --Fire Star 15:44, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
yes, the article is problematic. It seems to be presenting the speculations of a single 1996 paper as fact. I am confident Wiglaf is accurately reporting the content of the paper, but this needs to be put into wider perspective. dab (𒁳) 15:33, 30 March 2007 (UTC)